marshy Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 (edited) Without reading every comment, I don't think it tells us anything that is really new. In that, there could always be that sort of ramification IF we are guilty. The reality is that we have not really given it that much thought to think it might be a genuine possiblity. I have though always wondered why Maire left the club so quickly, and the circumstances which surround it. Edited December 3, 2019 by marshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 8 minutes ago, Minton said: Why would we be discussing the punishment with the auditors? We are challenging the EFL over whether we have breached the rules at all. The punishment will only be discussed and decided (internally by the EFL) once we have found innocent / proven guilty surely? Ultimately it is the directors that take responsibility for the accounts. The auditors simply provide an opinion thereon. Like I have said throughout this situation without access to the evidence it is impossible to judge this. The fact the EFL have considered the same evidence and believe there is a case to answer more than concerns me. As I say my judgement is reserved. If found guilty though please let's not blame the EFL, accuse them of a witch hunt or conspiracy theories, or blame the rules. If we are guilty we will deserve any punishment that is given and let's hope OUR club survives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minton Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, mkowl said: Ultimately it is the directors that take responsibility for the accounts. The auditors simply provide an opinion thereon. Like I have said throughout this situation without access to the evidence it is impossible to judge this. The fact the EFL have considered the same evidence and believe there is a case to answer more than concerns me. As I say my judgement is reserved. If found guilty though please let's not blame the EFL, accuse them of a witch hunt or conspiracy theories, or blame the rules. If we are guilty we will deserve any punishment that is given and let's hope OUR club survives Agreed on the outcome, think there are too many on here that have a persecution complex when it comes to the EFL (refs, cards, fouls, embargoes etc). What I find strange is that the EFL ratified our books when we (eventually) filed them. I don't get how they can have two bites at the same cherry. But then again, I'm not an accountant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulva Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 ‘Wiping the slate clean’ is a very rose tinted view of where we are. This could easily end up with us in League 2, with a Chairman, and more importantly owner, sat in Bangkok with a completely empty enthusiasm tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsheri Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, Minton said: Agreed on the outcome, think there are too many on here that have a persecution complex when it comes to the EFL (refs, cards, fouls, embargoes etc). What I find strange is that the EFL ratified our books when we (eventually) filed them. I don't get how they can have two bites at the same cherry. But then again, I'm not an accountant. They have to answer Gibsons accusations. Otherwise they could be sued. My belief is that if Gibson hadn't made accusations then none of this would be happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulva Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 And an owner that owns the keys to the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minton Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, sweetsheri said: They have to answer Gibsons accusations. Otherwise they could be sued. My belief is that if Gibson hadn't made accusations then none of this would be happening. Which is my suspicion as well. As I said earlier in the thread, this could be the EFL's way of shutting him up about this stuff for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darklord Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 29 minutes ago, StudentOwl said: It never ceased to amaze me that for a club that was very nearly wound up about a decade ago, Wednesday fans were quite willing to unconditionally support a man who had to sell one of the most historic stadiums in football, and create a non-trading taxi firm and sports drink just to fund a day-trip to London a few years ago. I would have thought the fanbase would be a bit more scrupulous. Fans turn a blind eye as long as they are winning points. Look at Cardiff, Hull, etc. It's only when they stop winning the fans begin to turn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsheri Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Just now, Minton said: Which is my suspicion as well. As I said earlier in the thread, this could be the EFL's way of shutting him up about this stuff for good. Doesn't answer why Derby and Reading are not involved though. Unless there sale was pretty obviously accounted for in the correct year. Clearly there is ambiguity about the timing of our sale. This is what it's all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minton Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, sweetsheri said: Doesn't answer why Derby and Reading are not involved though. Unless there sale was pretty obviously accounted for in the correct year. Clearly there is ambiguity about the timing of our sale. This is what it's all about. We are the test case. Derby and Reading are both under investigation as well and have done what we have for a fair amount more than we have. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/10/16/efl-step-investigation-derby-sheffield-wednesday-reading-stadium/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jonboy27 said: I think that would be a massive step forward from where we are now. Bit harsh on Si that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 9 hours ago, SiJ said: If we change our name to red bull sheffield wednesday then that's me out. I'm happy to be associated with any "real" brand/business..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsheri Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, Minton said: We are the test case. Derby and Reading are both under investigation as well and have done what we have for a fair amount more than we have. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/10/16/efl-step-investigation-derby-sheffield-wednesday-reading-stadium/ Then why make an example and charge only one of the 3? That's discriminatory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minton Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, sweetsheri said: Then why make an example and charge only one of the 3? That's discriminatory? No, that's sensible financial planning and building case law. If they find they can make it stick with us, they will go after the other 2. If it's dismissed then they will have a bill from us for legal fees. Better just 1 huge bill rather than 3 huge bills Edited December 3, 2019 by Minton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shezzas left peg Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 1 hour ago, billyblack said: Would prefer to be overseen by an Elf... I'll let you have that one now we're in December, so chrimbo is allowed. Id have negged you if we were still in November 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Quite sensationalist based on limited information. Were these charges part of the original charge? Have the EFL changed tack in desperation, looking for individuals, as the clubs accounts were apparently ratified by them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owls7 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 We are going to by the looks of it get a big points deduction which we have no choice but to take that on the chin and move on. The fine we may get, well I see we have one big asset at the moment and that's iorfa if we can get a decent fee for him it could get us out of a bit of financial mess. I don't know what we still owe for Rhodes but I think come January we have no choice but to sell. Only problem is when clubs know your in trouble they try and get players on the cheap and I'm not sure our chairman has much choice this time but to sell. I just hope it all gets sorted soon as it's the players and the fans I feel sorry for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, sweetsheri said: Then why make an example and charge only one of the 3? That's discriminatory? 1 minute ago, Minton said: No, that's sensible financial planning and building case law. If they find they can make it stick with us, they will go after the other 2. If it's dismissed then they will have a bill from us for legal fees. Better just 1 huge bill rather than 3 huge bills Also, ya know, the others don't have non-trading companies as their sponsors and questionable dates as to when their ground sales occured. If they've got only one case they can hypothetically win, it's ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, sweetsheri said: Then why make an example and charge only one of the 3? That's discriminatory? Its not the stadium sale, although I'm sure they'd argue its not in the spirit of the rules. It's the fact that we appear to have sold our stadium and backdated the transaction, the others have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsheri Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Morepork said: Its not the stadium sale, although I'm sure they'd argue its not in the spirit of the rules. It's the fact that we appear to have sold our stadium and backdated the transaction, the others have not. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now